City of Durant v. Consumers' Light & Power Co.

1918 OK 742, 177 P. 361, 71 Okla. 282, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 945
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedDecember 31, 1918
Docket9952
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 1918 OK 742 (City of Durant v. Consumers' Light & Power Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Durant v. Consumers' Light & Power Co., 1918 OK 742, 177 P. 361, 71 Okla. 282, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 945 (Okla. 1918).

Opinion

OWEN, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Corporation Commission fixing the rates to be charged for electric current furnished to the inhabitants of the city of Durant and the town of Bokchito. An increase in the rates was authorized by the commission on application of the light company. The city and town appeal.

Two propositions are urged: First, that the testimony was insufficient to justify the order increasing the rates; and, second, that the commission was without authority to increase the rates in view of the contract between the city and the assignor of the light company, by the terms of which the city sold its municipal lighting plant and agreed not to engage in furnishing light to the inhabitants of the city for a period of seven years, in consideration of the invoice value of said plant, and an agreement on the part of the light company to. furnish electric current to the inhabitants of the city at a rate mentioned in the contract for said period.

The light company submitted evidence as to the cost of operation and all receipts during the year 1917, and from this evidence it appears that during the first half of the year the company operated at a profit, but during the last six months at such a loss as to show a net loss for the year. It appears there was a radical increase in operating expenses during the last six months of this period, due, in a large part, to the increased cost of fuel. Counsel urge this increase was due to the unusual and unprecedented conditions prevailing during the last half of 1917, and that this unusual condition does not furnish a sufficient basis for the increase of rates. The increased cost of operation was not due solely to the increase in the price of fuel. It appears there was an increase in the cost of labor and material used in the necessary repair and up-keep of the property. It also appears from the order that the increase in rates was understood to be tentative only, and will be adjusted by tile commission as soon as there may be a change in conditions which enter into the cost of operation that may warrant a change in the rates. We think the evidence reasonably supports the findings of the commission and justifies the increase in rates.

Assuming that the city was authorized to sell the light plant and enter into the contract relied upon, this would not serve to ous¿ the Corporation Commission of jurisdiction, or in any way limit its power to decrease or increase the rates as fixed in the contract. Section 2, c. 93, Sess. Laws 1913, which went into effect prior to the execution of this contract, gives the Corporation Commission general supervision over public utilities, including light and power plants with power to establish rates.

In the case of City of Pawhuska v. Pawhuska Oil & Gas Co., 64 Okla. 214, 166 Pac. *283 ¿058, it was held this power was inherent in the state, and the effect of this act of the Legislature was to repose the power in the Corporation Commission. The conclusion in that case is controlling in this instance.

The order of the Corporation Commission is affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Agnew v. City of Culver City
304 P.2d 788 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
Southwestern Light & Power Co. v. City of Elk
1940 OK 458 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1940)
Carey v. Corporation Commission
1934 OK 325 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)
Huffaker v. Town of Fairfax
1925 OK 960 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
United States v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.
297 F. 575 (Eighth Circuit, 1924)
Little v. Oklahoma Railway Co.
1924 OK 213 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
City of St. George v. Public Utilities Commission
220 P. 720 (Utah Supreme Court, 1923)
Southern Oil Corp. v. Yale Natural Gas Co.
1923 OK 129 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Camden v. Arkansas Light & Power Co.
224 S.W. 444 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1920)
City of Sapulpa v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co.
1920 OK 139 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
Muskogee Gas & Electric Co. v. State
1920 OK 6 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1918 OK 742, 177 P. 361, 71 Okla. 282, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-durant-v-consumers-light-power-co-okla-1918.